Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mangal Singh on 8 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 470 of 2021
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Golbazar,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Mangal Singh S/o Heera Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Bandhwapara,
Lakhenagar, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For Petitioner/State : Mr. Ravish Verma, G.A.
DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
Order On Board
08/06/2021
1. Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. In view of office report, the period of lockdown has to be excluded therefore
the application is treated to be within limitation. Application for condonation of
delay is accordingly disposed off as unnecessary.
3. Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal.
4. Learned State Counsel would submit that though the prosecution led a tenable
and reliable electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage which clearly
shows the person seen behind the building catching fire resulting in death of at
least three persons, the learned trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the
electronic evidence with regard to the presence of the respondent-accused
behind the building in question around the time when it caught fire resulting in
death. He would submit that even though there is no direct evidence in the
form of any eyewitness having witnessed respondent-accused setting the
building on fire, an electronic evidence coupled with the evidence of reliable
part of the evidence of the hostile evidence of Zameel Sagar @ Ramu proves
the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and build up a case beyond
doubt.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of learned State
Counsel and perused the relevant evidence including the evidence of Zameel
Sagar @ Ramu and material with regard to electronic evidence and finding
recorded by the learned Court below.
6. The operative reason and material basis for the learned trial Court to acquit
the respondent-accused by giving him benefit of doubt has been lack of
reliable evidence. As far as electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage is
concerned, the learned trial Court elaborately dealt with and made observation
on such evidence. Learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence as not reliable
because firstly prosecution has failed to lead admissible evidence to lay
credence and reliability to the electronic evidence and even forensic test was
not conducted. Original DVR was not produced. Even if, without that it could
be relied upon, in any case, the prosecution witness and court's own scrutiny
of the electronic evidence shows that the face of the person who was seen
behind the building, which was set on fire, itself is not clear. Thus, there was
no clinching evidence found by the learned trial Court to connect the accused
with alleged commission of offence. Even in the CCTV footage nothing is seen
as some person setting the building on fire. There is no reliable evidence led
by the prosecution against the respondent-accused to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence was found falling short of the
reliable and substantive evidence to convict the accused for serious allegation
of murder by setting the building on fire.
7. In our consideration, there is no perversity or patent illegality in the finding of
the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Given limited scope of interference against judgment of
acquittal, we find ourselves unable to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment of the trial Court in the absence of any clinching evidence to bring
home guilt.
8. The application for grant of leave to appeal, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Ravi
